A Scoping Review to Guide Social Work Policy-Practice for Pandemic Recovery
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The aim of this scoping review is to systematically scope the literature on social work, the COVID-19 pandemic, and health policy. The research question guiding the scoping review is: What are the policy issues emerging during the COVID-19 pandemic that are of importance for social workers working in health and mental health? Method: Scoping review methodology following Arksey and O’Malley's five-stage framework. Results: A final sample of 191 articles were included in the scoping review. The five themes identified are: (a) strengthening social work's capacity to address structural issues in practice, (b) gaps in social work education, (c) need for new and updated standards and guidelines, (d) need for professional clarity and professional supports, and (e) inadequate government response. Conclusions: By strengthening uptake of the policy-practice framework, social work practitioners concurrently address immediate client issues and address upstream factors perpetuating inequities emerging during the pandemic.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.062 | 0.376 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.038 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.015 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it